RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5309, 1 April 1878, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Saturday, March 30. , (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. John Wright and Henry Smith were each fined ss. for drunkenness, with the usual alternative of imprisonment in case of non-pay-ment. THREATENING. D. E. Toohill, a butcher, was summoned by William Finnimore, auctioneer, for haviug, on the 28th instant, used threatening language towards him. Mr. Brandon, jun., appeared for the comolaiuant; Mr. Fitz Gerald for the defendant. Prosecutor stated that defendant had been engaged in building a dam on his property, and a dispute arose about the way iu which the work was being carried out, which led to the alleged offence. Defendant shook his hand in witness’s face, and threatened to “ put him through,” besides calling him a cur. Witness was not afraid of him as man to man, because defendant might find a Tartar if he interfered with him. Mr. Fitz Gerald submitted that the prosecution must fail after such an admission. Mr. Crawford said that unless complainant was in fear of receiving bodily harm from defendant the latter could not be bound over to keep the peace. , . The complainant replied that he thought defendant might do him an injury. After other witnesses had been called and examined, Mr. Crawford was of opinion that neither party was quite free from blame iu the matter, and ordered defendant to be bound over in his own recognisances of £lO to keep the peace ; and plaintiff must pay costs,, ALLEGED TRESPASS. Thomas Mitchell was summoned by William Finnimore for trespassing on his property. Mr. Brandon, junior, appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Edwards for the defendant. From the evidence adduced it appeared that a read passed through the property of complainant, at Yogeltown, which defendant, declared he had a right to walk over, and the action was brought to test whether it was a private or public road. A number of witnesses having been examined, who proved that the road had been used as a common one, Mr. Crawford decided that he had no jurisdiction, as a question of title arose, aud the case was consequently dismissed.